Fraywatch

heh heh...

DaysLight — Tue, 06 May 2008 02:35:04 GMT

degs is likely your equal on the supply side ...

you two don't flirt with our dull and dreary world enough to have acquired our love for mutual respect and admiration; but we are big on that over in moneybox / bottomline... well, the regulars are big on that; if we give each other digs it is all done in brotherly love, if someone gets a checkie, everyone flowers them with praise... it's a family; er, board tradition.

Re: the fray is a happening...

le-idiot — Sun, 04 May 2008 01:55:52 GMT

danger!!! will robinson!!! danger!!!

degs has just dissed her own post!!!!

looks like el has also been drawn into the vortex!!!

he's probably running at us with a fistfull of fifties!!!

Re: the fray is a happening...

le-idiot — Sun, 04 May 2008 01:51:13 GMT

days:

i'll still contribute if degs finally admits that nothing happens (really!) with legal tender until a debt is both created by a transaction between two entities and the currency note (as legal tender) is profferred to extinguish the debt.

the debt is brought into existence by the transaction creating the debt and the currency (or note issued by the treasury against the perceived market value of its assets) is accepted as legal tender to extinguish the debt.

days...i think degs will continue to go west until both of you meet behind a dumpster in north hollywood. i'm trying not to picture that ...

the fray is a happening...

DaysLight — Sat, 03 May 2008 19:46:52 GMT

which is a fragile event; there's nothing certain about it's destiny... people could continue it or it could die off. Fraysters seem to be amazingly resilient posters; we've put up with horrific obstacles and still come back for more. They re-invented the wheel on this new fray, but they did get it working... look at all the suggestions we've offered to fix the fray.

Re: yep...

le-idiot — Sat, 03 May 2008 19:03:42 GMT

i copy that.

never suspected any of that other stuff...other than if it is a factor, it can put arguments on the outside.

takes all the fun out of this, otherwise.

wasn't much fun and surprise left in slate after the inhuman network...

maybe i've been looking down the wrong end of the telescope...?

maybe slate got smaller as well as narrow?

too bad, if true.

yep...

DaysLight — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:54:12 GMT

that's what gets confused on this fray; Pound's ideas were just that - his ideas. Certainly not mine, and certainly not remotely close to what we post in moneybox. The FED is a huge program, we almost never mention characters like Ezra Pound; I imagine he gets some play over in poem fray. My thoughts on the apocalypse get some play; but only as far as they deal with real world conditions; Phil will humor me on my attempts to guess what might take place in banking, but Phil will take a stab at anything; he's just a brilliant individual with a vibrant mind. There's more atheists in moneybox than in BOTF; we tend to treat religions as financial institutions. You know what? That works for me, I'm not into religion. I'm big on faith; and so is business; without faith, there would be no trade. And in the final analysis, that's all we really have backing our currency; the good faith and hopes and dreams and, of course, taxation of the American people.

Re: I watched a PBS special on Pound...

le-idiot — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:28:28 GMT

days:

never suspected or intended that...

i don't think that slate is any more or less jewish than christianity or the united states...

mr. kinsley would have to say otherwise...or even run...but the fed is an argument unto itself without the jewish vibe.

i thought the stars of david were just a provocation or double-play on american media...sort of a hip aside (el lay will decide who is hip!). or just defacto at slate...dunno.

ezra got rolled...his attacks on the bbc from italy during ww2 meant 'i'm not allowed to read my poetry on the bbc! so screw you, i'm on the airwaves anyway!'

he's much less nazi than the british royals, duke of hamilton and herman von karian (one of those mentioned was as talented as pound!).

gotta bail on your apocalyptic stuff, but good luck with all of that...

i'm such a chump for not hanging with all that group stuff...

i have to assume that you're an individual expressing an individual opinion? ok with that?

I watched a PBS special on Pound...

DaysLight — Sat, 03 May 2008 16:58:23 GMT

the guy was a gifted poet, incredibly gifted. He was moving in those circles, in his day that meant moving to Paris - which he did. And then he moved on to a small Italian seaside village - very picturesque, and he lived there a couple decades. When WWII broke out, he began his radio talks/rants against FDR and the whole system back in the states, against jews, against banking, and how it was the real reason for this war, and all the evil that came forth. He was one of these extremely high energy type personalities, he did everything for effect, you have to remember that you are dealing with an artist; they purposely cross lines to get your attention. Everyone who came in contact with Pound was fascinated with him, I think he strove to be that, whether in his poetry or in his politics or in his social endeavors.

Slate magazine is decidedly jewish - right down to utilizing the star of David instead of an American pentagon star. I felt this was as good a place as any to point out the prophesy that is in old and new testaments which states the nation of Israel would make a secret league with the antichrist. This is why I don't agree with JackDallas that we should blindly back Israel to the hilt; why go there with them? This magazine blindly goes there; always pro-zion, as it seems American jews tend to be, but the last seven years of the apocalypse are called the time of Jacob's trouble... we have about 25 years to stop and ponder what is happening over there. Ezra Pound is a tough cookie to swallow, but if you could look past his railing on the jews and perceive what he was mad about, there's a lesson in there for jews everywhere. Don't be too quick to follow this zionist movement... it is stumbling into God's trap for Israel.

Re: first of all...

le-idiot — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:50:34 GMT

days:

you're talkin' to degs, right?

i seldom google anything but degs was so strident about my abe beame 'conspiracy'...plus ezra (whose personal enemies were jews in his circle of influence--think his dad worked at a mint?) there may be a difference between your enemies (direct conflict...like the fed book be co-authored) and anti-semitism (and the holocaust) and his reading poetry on fascist italian radio during ww2. here is the delmore schwartz take on pound's antisemitism:

A year later, 1939, Schwartz writes Pound once more. He has just read ''Culture.'' ''Here I find numerous remarks about the Semite or Jewish race, all of them damning. . . . A race cannot commit a moral act. Only an individual can be moral or immoral. No generalization from a sum of particulars is possible, which will render a moral judgment. . . I should like you to consider this letter as a resignation: I want to resign as one of your most studious and faithful admirers.'' It is interesting to note another essay on Pound, written 22 years later. Schwartz examines with distaste the improbabilities in the echoing chambers of Pound's mind, but a book is an object in the world and not an exact equivalent of the whole person. The essay ends: ''The first and most important thing to say about Pound's Cantos is that they ought to be read again and again by anyone interested in any form of literature.''

One pauses over the Pound letters because there is in them a narrative of cause and effect, completely literary. And yet there are almost no letters in the volume that do not arise from the liking or not liking a poem by a friend or colleague, or from the murky snubs and rocky alliances of the academy. Most of all, the letters are called upon to display the gifts necessary to an editor; that is, evading, delaying, sliding, balancing friendship, courtesy and prudence against what are seen to be the immediate needs and possibilities of a periodical. In the case of Schwartz, Partisan Review was seen, and especially by poets, as an instrument of power. Mr. Shapiro stresses this in his foreword: ''Acceptance in PR was acclamation; it conferred a special ideological status on the accepted.''

the same can be said of a posting 'and a checkmark' at slate if the exponent is missing (pound and schwartz would be 10 to the nth...and slate would be near -35? a neutrino's impact compare to pound and schwartz.)

remember the gold stars of david (run wore one and deserved more in my opinion--run doesn't need my affirmation nor do i ask his) at slate? christ, that was hip!?

and since the inhuman network, degs and topaz and early hold court and caucus in the fray that really only smells like the old fray...that originality is what run and i remember and enjoyed.

it's o k to write from experience and compare...i had to google to find yet another group of conspirators who know what's good for all of us to consider...within their personal reference, of course

mr. schwartz would have straightened us all out...like he told pound in writing. (he also lobbied to spring pound from st. elizabeth).

first of all...

DaysLight — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:12:03 GMT

this was my response to your post; so unless you did some time travel of your own, you were not calling this post anything, you had reacted to something earlier in the thread, calling that a banking conspiracy.

2nd of all... this was my guess at what you might be thinking; it was not part of the thread per se, it was not my banking conspiracy post, it was my guess at what you were thinking was a banking conspiracy.

3rd of all... imprecision is not equal to a conspiracy theory. Trying to claim something smells of a conspiracy theory because it is imprecise is ridiculous; or as you would put it: imprecise logic.

4th of all... I'm typing ideas, I'm not going back to study first, I'm not preparing a paper, I'm just slapping off concepts for a fray post; I'm going by memory; I've got spelling imperfections, grammar imperfections, sometimes my sentences don't make perfect sense; especially when I can't even see the sentence I'm in the middle of (quick reply window) so it begs the question; are my concepts whacked out or are you nitpicking points of the law? Jefferson laid out a paper with seven major points why he disagreed with Hamilton's bank; you provided the conclusion; one of the items was violation of the laws of escheat, I think I mixed the idea of forming a trust from that point with one of the arguments against the The Federal Reserve Act (it would form a giant money trust - which it did) so that was an imperfection, but still on target with what I guessed you were pointing at. Which, by the way, you still have failed to produce; what conspiracy theory?????

I'm not totally concerned whether or not a treaty is considered international law, because for the sake of banking, they are the rules that are in force. Those rules created the reserves that made the NY-FED the largest repository of currency in the world. That's the main point here, who cares whether or not OPEC treaties are considered international law... what is law? Bankers post on conditions in place, it is a market that is constantly moving, it is impossible to be precise; nothing is precise; by the time you finish your sentence the market has already moved to a new reality. We try to nail trends, we try to grasp what behaviors exist, we try to perceive which actions are healthy and which actions are hurting us. I'm going to post on the realities I see in the banking world; one of those realities is the nature of corporate greed and also the strong concentration of wealth in the top 1% of society - that's not a banking conspiracy theory, it's a reality.

Re: I am Ok with it, not that my approval is needed

le-idiot — Sat, 03 May 2008 14:00:31 GMT

run:

that currency thing got a checkmark (i thought it was because of phil and days contributions, noh?)...should i invoke the deities and fall on my shinto joystick?

degs is pissed about the checkmark, only...usually degs only jumps my posts for eif and slate political correctness stuff via her majesty's court.

i miss the old fray as well...which is what makes me a current rubbing post? those dogpiles before the inhuman group applied the prc spy freamwork were very funny and often very, very fast!! i miss them.

i only speak out of global experience...and i have a college diploma plus, but it's easy to figure out what slate wants now-a-days. no sale here.

thanks for the usual even handedness...

hope all is well.

best regards,

I have a pretty good grasp

degsme — Sat, 03 May 2008 07:56:11 GMT

I have a pretty good grasp of money supply - I minored in econ.

See where you enter the realm of conspiracy theorists is when you say things like:

Anti-trust laws in this nation forbid the monopolizing of any industry. When Hamilton put forth the idea of a federal bank, Jefferson said it would violate anti-trust laws and laws of escheat.

Anti-trust laws do NOT forbid the monopolizing of an industry. They simply apply different laws and regs to a corporation that is deemed a monopoly. For example, utilities are usually monopolies, and hence are typically regulated, but they are not illegal.

And since anti-trust legislation only came about in 1890 with the advent of the Sherman Anti-trust Act for Jefferson to invoke the anti-trust laws in opposing the NATIONAL bank (as opposed to a Federal Bank) would have required time travel that I don't think was available to even his brilliant scientific friend Ben Franklin.

Jefferson opposed the National Bank largely on the IXth Amendment grounds

" I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution. "

Note also that Oil-Trade laws don't exist. What exist are treaties under which most OPEC nations trade oil in dollar denominations, but treaties are not laws.

This sort of "imprecision" is typical of conspiracy theorists.

currency

DaysLight — Sat, 03 May 2008 02:03:27 GMT

is not controlled by cookin' the books; it floats in value every day on a worldwide market. Read my first response to your post, behind le-idiot's response.

Discussing the FED

degsme — Fri, 02 May 2008 22:43:05 GMT

Discussing the FED is not inherently conspiracy theory.

ranting on and on about how every major gummint official is "cooking the books" is.

you are confused!

DaysLight — Fri, 02 May 2008 14:44:09 GMT

first aways, what conspiracy theory? Specifically, what theory? It blows my mind, that you would comment this about my posting and I wouldn't even know what you are talking about. Your insipid comment seems squared in the idea that any discussion about the FED is somehow a conspiracy theory... did you even read the thread?

second, if you haven't got the courage to care about this nation and what ails it, if daring to discuss the central bank causes you to pee your pants, save us your crybaby tears... as if the rest of us are supposed to be the chicken-shit that you are being on the subject.